Groupthink among politicians, media, and experts led to severe harm to vulnerable groups, including children, report finds

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

WINNIPEG (TMNW) Feb. 12, 2025/ A new report from the Frontier Centre for Public Policy claims that pandemic response policies recklessly ignored established emergency management principles, causing widespread harm and severely undermining public trust.

When COVID-19 Claims of ‘Revisionism’ and ‘Misinformation’ are Themselves Misinformed, authored by Dr. Ari R. Joffe, Pooya Kazemi, Dr. Roy Eappen, and Dr. Chris Milburn, argues that the use of terms like “misinformation” and “revisionism” to shut down critiques of lockdowns, school closures, and mask mandates effectively blocked essential debate and stifled efforts to learn from the pandemic.

The authors contend that sound Emergency Management (EM) principles, which emphasize preparation, response, mitigation, and recovery, should have been the foundation of COVID-19 policies. Instead, they say, narrow virus-control tactics were enforced with little regard for broader societal impacts, leading to a surge in mental health issues, educational setbacks, economic strain, and a catastrophic erosion of public trust.

According to the authors, “misinformation” and “revisionism” were used as convenient shields to sidestep hard questions. This tactic, they argue, allowed policymakers to avoid confronting uncomfortable truths about the harm caused by restrictive measures. The report suggests that an evidence-based, multidisciplinary approach could have more effectively managed the pandemic’s complex challenges – but was blocked by a lack of open debate.

The report doesn’t mince words on the fallout from COVID-19 policies: a rise in mental health crises, learning loss, unemployment, neglected healthcare, and surging social inequality. Citing research by Dr. Alison Bardosh, the authors suggest that the adverse effects of these policies will likely claim more years of well-being than COVID-19 itself. Vulnerable groups, especially children and disadvantaged families, endured the worst impacts, according to the authors, and on a global scale, the damage was even more pronounced, adding to poverty, missed childhood vaccinations, and rising rates of violence and inequality.

The authors argue that authorities chose an authoritarian approach instead of a balanced response, pushing rigid, one-size-fits-all policies. They insist that, had authorities followed the well-established Emergency Management framework – which is applied to natural disasters to co-ordinate a balanced response – the pandemic response would have been more adaptive and comprehensive. Under the EM model, they say, governments would have considered both immediate risks and broader social impacts, allowing room for flexibility as new evidence emerged. For instance, data that questioned the effectiveness of community masking or emphasized the strength of natural immunity could have reshaped policies if such findings hadn’t been ignored.

The authors further criticize the use of “misinformation” labels to silence critical perspectives. This dismissive attitude, they say, discouraged honest examination of flawed pandemic policies. Instead of labelling dissenters, they argue that leaders should have welcomed debate and independent scrutiny, which could have prevented harmful groupthink and policy blunders.

They cite the backlash faced by supporters of the Great Barrington Declaration, who called for focused protection for vulnerable populations instead of blanket lockdowns. According to the report, dismissing this approach as “unscientific” was a clear example of groupthink run amok, robbing decision-makers of a more balanced, nuanced path forward.

The report makes three hard-hitting recommendations to prevent future public health blunders. First, it calls for ending the automatic dismissal of well-founded critiques as “misinformation” and instead encouraging a transparent, evidence-based policy process that welcomes debate and adjusts to new information.

Second, the authors demand a return to Emergency Management principles, which involve drawing on diverse expertise, prioritizing transparency, and conducting regular cost-benefit analyses. They argue that only this balanced approach – taking into account the social impacts of health interventions – can prepare society to respond to future crises with more resilience.

Finally, the report calls for accountability at the highest levels. The authors push for an independent review to thoroughly assess the effectiveness and consequences of pandemic policies, seeing it as a critical step in restoring public confidence. According to the authors, public trust will only recover when those responsible for pandemic decisions are held accountable through an impartial, comprehensive review of what went wrong.

The authors also issue a warning against centralized public health policies, citing ongoing negotiations for a World Health Organization treaty that could make it easier to impose global lockdowns. They argue that this approach could strip local communities of the flexibility they need to respond to unique conditions and risks, leading to ineffective, cookie-cutter mandates. Centralized lockdowns, they caution, are unlikely to provide the nuanced responses necessary to address the varied vulnerabilities of different populations.

The report concludes with a blunt call for an independent commission to scrutinize the pandemic response to rebuild public trust and ensure that future responses are stronger and better balanced. The authors argue that public health must encompass a broad range of societal needs and not simply fixate on controlling a single disease. For them, transparency, flexibility, and accountability are non-negotiable if we are to learn from COVID-19 and bolster public health resilience.

In short, the report pulls no punches: it’s a call for radical change in how we approach public health, one that values open debate, realistic assessments, and an unwavering commitment to serve the public good above all else.

To download When COVID-19 Claims of ‘Revisionism’ and ‘Misinformation’ are Themselves Misinformed, click here.

To download a version of the report that presents the key insights without extensive footnotes and data-heavy elements, click here.

Media Contact:

Marco Navarro-Genie
Vice President of Research and Policy
[email protected]

About the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

The Frontier Centre for Public Policy is an independent think tank committed to promoting government accountability, economic growth, and individual freedoms through innovative policy solutions.

📢 For press release submissions and distributions, click here.